What do you think?
Rate this book
Reason and value: Aristotle versus Rand
Auburn University professor of philosophy offers new interpretations of Aristotle and Ayn Rand in ethics and epistemology. Among the issues at Does Rand's thought contain Platonic, Humean, Hobbesian, and Kantian elements? Does Aristotle share Rand's committment to sense-perception as the foundation of knowledge? What is the meaning of the ethical standard of man's life-qua-man?,... and much more. Also contains two critical commentaries and a reply by the author. Sure to ignite debate.
- GenresPhilosophy
122 pages, Unknown Binding
First published October 1, 2000
6 people are currently reading
57 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 7, 2017
This is the first in-depth critique of Rand's philosophy I've seen that I think is sound and substantive.
Most critiques are by people who haven't read her, who reject egoism or individualism, who have seemingly never heard of virtue ethics or a conception of "happiness" that inherently involves virtue, who don't have an aesthetic sense and therefore assume aesthetics aren't real, or who are focused on rather peripheral issues (like her tone or her sloppy scholarship).
On the contrary, Roderick T. Long is a libertarian and Aristotelian and has no problem with vivid or polemical language.
He takes Rand at her word -- she says she's making logically valid arguments, so he holds them to that standard, and finds that in many cases they're inconsistent. (For instance, she waffles between believing that respecting others' rights is instrumentally valuable because it works out to our advantage, and believing that a virtuous life is constitutively necessary for happiness; the latter is the Aristotelian view.)
There's something exhilarating and cheerful about taking the axe of critical thinking to sacred cows and *still* finding that the whole world is not destroyed. Long doesn't want to take away your ability to live freely or make sense of the world. He wants to strengthen you by clarifying away errors. I keep forgetting that this is possible, and I'm delighted to discover a new "friend" who can do it.
Most critiques are by people who haven't read her, who reject egoism or individualism, who have seemingly never heard of virtue ethics or a conception of "happiness" that inherently involves virtue, who don't have an aesthetic sense and therefore assume aesthetics aren't real, or who are focused on rather peripheral issues (like her tone or her sloppy scholarship).
On the contrary, Roderick T. Long is a libertarian and Aristotelian and has no problem with vivid or polemical language.
He takes Rand at her word -- she says she's making logically valid arguments, so he holds them to that standard, and finds that in many cases they're inconsistent. (For instance, she waffles between believing that respecting others' rights is instrumentally valuable because it works out to our advantage, and believing that a virtuous life is constitutively necessary for happiness; the latter is the Aristotelian view.)
There's something exhilarating and cheerful about taking the axe of critical thinking to sacred cows and *still* finding that the whole world is not destroyed. Long doesn't want to take away your ability to live freely or make sense of the world. He wants to strengthen you by clarifying away errors. I keep forgetting that this is possible, and I'm delighted to discover a new "friend" who can do it.
Displaying 1 of 1 review